Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA GeForce 930M Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The NVIDIA GeForce 930M and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 are nearly inseparable in raw benchmark performance, with the 930M taking a narrow victory in both recorded tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 930M scores 5046 against the Iris Pro's 5042, a lead of just 0.1%. That is a margin of four points — effectively a statistical tie, yet the data still records a winner. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens slightly: the 930M posts 3729 versus 3677, a 1.4% advantage. Neither result represents a decisive blow, but the 930M sweeps both head-to-head tests, giving it a 2–0 win record in this comparison.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The 930M averages 4388 across all tests, while the Iris Pro averages 4360. That is a 0.6% difference in the 930M's favor. Both GPUs sit at the 26th percentile among all GPUs in the database, underscoring how closely matched they are in overall capability. The nearest rival data reinforces this: the 930M's closest competitor is the Iris Pro itself, with a deltaPct of 0.7%, while the Iris Pro's nearest rival is the GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 at 0.6% — followed immediately by the 930M at -0.6%. In other words, these two parts are each other's benchmark neighbors.

The Vulkan result is worth examining more closely. A 1.4% delta in Vulkan suggests the 930M has a slight edge in that API's workload characteristics, likely due to its dedicated memory architecture versus the Iris Pro's shared system memory approach. However, the OpenCL gap of 0.1% indicates that in compute-heavy general workloads, the two are essentially interchangeable. For anyone looking at synthetic scores alone, the choice between these two comes down to fractions of a percent.

# Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 930M wins in both recorded benchmarks, so on pure scoreboard terms it is the clear victor. Its OpenCL win, though marginal, shows it can hold its own in general-purpose compute tasks. The Vulkan win, at 1.4%, is more meaningful — Vulkan is a low-overhead API that tends to reward efficient hardware utilization, and the 930M's discrete memory allocation gives it an advantage in that context. The 930M also has a higher average benchmark score (4388 vs. 4360), meaning that across all tests in the database, not just the head-to-head ones, it maintains a lead.

The Iris Pro Graphics 5200, despite losing both head-to-head tests, has its own strengths in the data. Its texture rate is dramatically higher: 46.00 GTexel/s versus 13.18 GTexel/s for the 930M. That is a 3.5× advantage in texturing throughput. For workloads that are texture-bound — such as certain older game engines or image processing filters — the Iris Pro could outperform its raw benchmark scores suggest. Its pixel rate is also slightly higher at 4.600 GPixel/s versus 4.392 GPixel/s, a 4.7% edge in fill-rate-bound scenarios. Additionally, the Iris Pro has a higher FP32 compute rating at 736.0 GFLOPS versus 421.6 GFLOPS — a 74.6% advantage in theoretical floating-point throughput. The benchmark scores do not reflect this gap, which suggests the Iris Pro's compute headroom is not fully realized in the tested workloads, possibly due to memory bandwidth constraints (System Dependent versus 12.80 GB/s for the 930M).

The practical takeaway: the 930M wins in real-world benchmark results, but the Iris Pro has significant theoretical advantages in texturing and floating-point compute that could matter in specific applications not captured by these two tests.

# Architecture Differences

These two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The 930M is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, using the GM108S chip fabricated on a 28 nm process by TSMC. The Iris Pro uses Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture (Haswell GT3e) on a 22 nm process from Intel's own fabs. The process node difference — 28 nm versus 22 nm — gives Intel a density advantage on paper, though the 930M's transistor count of 1,020 million on a 77 mm² die (13.2M / mm²) shows a dense packing for its node.

Core configurations differ significantly. The 930M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Iris Pro has 320 shading units (fewer), but 40 TMUs (more) and only 4 ROPs (half). This explains the texture rate disparity — more TMUs at a higher boost clock produce 46.00 GTexel/s. The Iris Pro's base clock is just 200 MHz, but it boosts to 1150 MHz, while the 930M runs at a flat 549 MHz with no boost. That clock difference partially compensates for the Iris Pro's lower shader count in FP32 terms, resulting in 736.0 GFLOPS versus 421.6 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture is the biggest divergence. The 930M has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 12.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Iris Pro uses System Shared memory — no dedicated VRAM, with bandwidth listed as System Dependent. This means the Iris Pro's performance is heavily influenced by the host system's RAM speed and configuration, while the 930M has predictable, fixed bandwidth. The 930M's memory clock is 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective), whereas the Iris Pro's memory clock is simply "System Shared."

Power and interface also differ. The 930M has a 33 W TDP and uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The Iris Pro has a 45 W TDP and connects via Ring Bus (integrated into the CPU die). Both are IGP-class (slot width "IGP") with no external power connectors on the 930M and none listed for the Iris Pro. API support favors the 930M for Vulkan (1.4 vs. 1.0) and OpenGL (4.6 vs. 4.3), while the Iris Pro has a slightly higher DirectX version (12 (11_1) vs. 12 (11_0)).

The 930M is a discrete GPU (albeit a low-power one) soldered to a laptop board, while the Iris Pro is an integrated GPU embedded within a Haswell processor. This fundamental difference drives everything else: the 930M's dedicated memory gives it consistency, while the Iris Pro's shared memory and higher clocks give it theoretical compute muscle.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930M, with an average benchmark score of 4388 compared to the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200's 4360, a 0.6% difference.

Q: Are these two GPUs closely matched in performance?

A: Yes. The 930M's nearest rival list includes the Iris Pro at a deltaPct of 0.7%, and the Iris Pro's list includes the 930M at -0.6%. Both sit at the 26th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: Does the Iris Pro have any theoretical performance advantage?

A: Yes. The Iris Pro has 736.0 GFLOPS FP32 compute versus 421.6 GFLOPS for the 930M, and a texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s versus 13.18 GTexel/s. However, these advantages do not translate into benchmark wins.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The 930M has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 12.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Iris Pro uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth, meaning it relies on the host system's RAM.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The 930M has a TDP of 33 W, while the Iris Pro has a TDP of 45 W. Both are integrated-class (IGP) solutions with no external power connectors listed for the 930M.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The 930M supports Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6, while the Iris Pro supports Vulkan 1.0 and OpenGL 4.3. The Iris Pro has a slight edge in DirectX support: 12 (11_1) vs. 12 (11_0) for the 930M.

# The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA GeForce 930M as the safer choice for benchmark-driven workloads. It wins both head-to-head tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), has a higher average score (4388 vs. 4360), and offers consistent, dedicated memory bandwidth of 12.80 GB/s rather than relying on system memory. Its API support is also more robust for Vulkan and OpenGL, which matters for modern applications and games that leverage these APIs.

However, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is not without merit. Its 74.6% higher FP32 throughput (736.0 GFLOPS vs. 421.6 GFLOPS) and 3.5× higher texture rate (46.00 GTexel/s vs. 13.18 GTexel/s) point to untapped potential in compute-heavy or texture-heavy scenarios. The benchmark gap is so small — 0.1% in OpenCL, 1.4% in Vulkan — that real-world differences will often be imperceptible. The Iris Pro also has a higher pixel rate (4.600 GPixel/s vs. 4.392 GPixel/s), which could favor certain fill-rate-bound workloads.

For users who prioritize consistent, predictable performance with a slight benchmark edge, the GeForce 930M is the pick. For those whose workloads are texture- or compute-bound and who have a fast system memory configuration, the Iris Pro's theoretical advantages could prove valuable — but the benchmark data does not confirm this advantage in practice. Both GPUs are end-of-life products, so availability and system compatibility will likely drive the final decision more than the 0.6% average score difference between them.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce 930M | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Maxwell | Generation 7.5 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | Not listed |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | Not listed |

| Base Clock | 549 MHz | 200 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 549 MHz | 1150 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective) | System Shared |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 12.80 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 384 | 320 |

| TMUs | 24 | 40 |

| ROPs | 8 | 4 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.392 GPixel/s | 4.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 13.18 GTexel/s | 46.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 421.6 GFLOPS | 736.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 33 W | 45 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | Ring Bus |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.0 |

| Release Date | 2015-03-12 | 2013-06-02 |